Rudolf responds to the following paragraphs in Mr. Justice Gray's Judgment:

7.68 . . . . There is a timesheet of a construction worker
which makes reference to fitting gastight windows to crematorium 4.

7.63 Crematoria 4 and 5 were new buildings. The initial drawings
are dated August 1942, not long after the visit paid to the camp by
Himmler, which the Defendants say marks the inception of the accelerated
extermination programme. According to van Pelt the design of these crematoria
incorporated undressing rooms (although not so designated on the drawings)
and morgues which were to serve as gas chambers. The drawings of the
morgues make provision for several windows measuring 30 x 40cms. The
size of these windows corresponds with the size of windows referred
to elsewhere in construction documents as being required to be gas proof.
The windows were to be above eye level. Van Pelt draws the inference
that the purpose of these windows was to enable Zyklon-B pellets to
be inserted through them into the building (a process which was observed
by Sonderkommando Dragon, as mentioned above).

7.64 Van Pelt agreed that the drawings for crematoria 4 and
5 show a drainage system which appears to link up with the camp sewage
system. He disagreed with Irving's suggestion that this would have been
highly dangerous because large quantities of liquid cyanide would have
found their way into the sewage system. Van Pelt claims that the gas
would evaporate rather than turn into liquid.

Rudolf does agree that "these rooms" in crematoria 4 and 5 were gas
chambers. He argues that these were, however, not homicidal gas chambers.
"Mr. Justice Gray appears to be unaware that before and during the war
the term "gas chamber" was used solely in connection with delousing facilities."
(p. 32) It is a point which Rudolf claims in his interview with his alias
Schlesiger already made nine years ago, in the original Rudolf Report.
"Before the development of the Holocaust the term Gaskammer (gas
chamber) was a technical term for a delousing chamber for clothing and
personal effects. . . . For that reason, I put a list of definitions of
terms in a chapter at the beginning of the expert report, in which Menschengaskammer,
(killing gas chamber), the term in common usage, was put in quote marks
to distinguish it from the technical term Gaskammer (gas chamber)." 26 I must say that, in all my years
working on the topic, I have never encountered the word "Menschengaskammer."
I would be interested to see Rudolf's evidence for the "common usage"
of that term.

Rudolf is careful not to include in his statement in the affidavit that
the term "gas chamber" was used solely in connection with delousing facilities
"after the war," because it seems that immediately after the defeat of
the Third Reich witnesses of the killings of people by gas in enclosed
spaces started to use the word "Gaskammer" to designate the spaces
in which this occurred. For example, Auschwitz Kommandant Rudolf H&oumlss
referred in his 1946 essay on the Final Solution to the underground space
in crematoria 2 and 3 where Jews were killed as a "Gaskammer."27 But he also referred to that
same space as a "Vergasungsraum."28 In his autobiography, written
somewhat later, he labels that space "Gaskammer,"29 but also refers to it as a "Gasraum."30
In other words, H&oumlss does not have seen the need for linguistic
precision when he referred to homicidal gas chambers.

In his work Teufel und Verdammte, written in 1945 and published
in 1946, the Auschwitz survivor Benedikt Kautsky continuously refers to
the "Gaskammer" in Birkenau as places where people are killed en
masse. 31 Similarly
when on November 4, 1945 Vinzenz Nohel was interviewed by the police in
Linz about his activities as an attendant in the T4 killing center of
Hartheim Castle, the place where mentally ill patients were killed, he
talked at length about a "Gaskammer" which at other moments he
also identified as a "Gasraum" which was disguised as a large bathroom.
Nohel testified that in this Gaskammer or Gasraum people were killed. 32

Even before the war had ended, on May 4, 1945, did Kurt Gerstein in
the German language version of his report (which he originally wrote a
couple of days earlier in French) on the gassings in the Operation Reinhard
camps use the word "Gaskammer" to denote those killing spaces.
He quotes Globocnik, the head of the killing operation, as instructing
him to modify the gas chambers (Gaskammern), and when he reports
on his visit to Treblinka he reports that it had 8 gas chambers (Gaskammern). 33 If Rudolf were right, a unique
linguistic revolution would have occurred in the final days of the Third
Reich, in which the word Gaskammer, which until then had exclusively
referred to a delousing gas chamber, suddenly had acquired a new meaning.

Of course, reality is different. While it is true that in official
German correspondence concerning Auschwitz the word "Gaskammern"
exclusively referred to delousing chambers, this was only because there
was a general policy not to refer directly to homicidal gas chambers as
"Gaskammern."

As to the use of the word "Gaskammer" before the war, according
to Dr. Heinz Küpper's Illustrierte Lexikon der deutsche Umgangssprache
the word "Gaskammer" has been used since 1914. It originally referred
to the room where gasmasks were tested for their efficiency. 34

Rudolf accepts on p. 34 of his affidavit that the alleged homicidal
gas chambers of crematoria 4 and 5 were prepared for use with Zyklon B.
But he asserts that the lights were to be built in "explosion proof" places,
marked with the words "ex.gesch" which would mean "explosionsgeschütz,"
or explosion proof. This, he argues, suggests the intended use of a high
concentration of gas appropriate to delousing, and not homicide. In the
alternative, Rudolf argues this if his first hypothesis is wrong, and
a high concentration of gas was contemplated for homicidal purposes in
crematoria 4 and 5, then the absence of the "ex.gesch" designation
for the lights in the plans for morgue 1 of crematorium 2 shows that it
cannot have been intended for use as a homicidal gas chamber.

On examination, Rudolf's arguments turn out to be based on two errors
of fact and one of logic. First, I have checked the plan on p. 401 of
his my copy of Pressac's Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the
Gas Chambers - of which only one edition appeared, and which therefore
must be the same edition as the one relied on by Rudolf. I cannot find
any trace "ex.gesch" on the plan, nor for that matter anywhere
else. On the contrary, the lights are indicated with the word "Kavernischen,"
or "set in." This is exactly what one would expect in a homicidal gas
chamber. Second, the inventory of crematorium 2 dated March 31, 1943 and
reproduced of p. 438 of Pressac's Auschwitz shows that it was provided
with Kugellampen , that is, convex lights. This would seem to suggest
that the lights were wholly or partly inset like in crematoria 4 and 5.
In this context it is also important to note that, contrary to Rudolf's
assertion, the plans for morgue 1 of crematorium 2 do not show any indication
at all as to where lights were to be installed, or what kinds of lights
they were to be.

Finally, even if Rudolf were right - which he is not - that the documents
contained no specification for or description of the lights in crematorium
2, this would prove nothing of its intended use, but would suggest only
that the relevant documents no longer existed (I estimate that, in all,
some 60% of the archive is extant).

In the result this section of Rudolf's report does nothing to disturb
the positive case made by the evidence as a whole that crematoria 4 and
5 were designed, built and used as homicidal installations.